[Dean's World] Ali Eteraz: Wrapping Up My Response to Dean

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Ali Eteraz:
Wrapping Up My Response to Dean
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1183333892.shtml


   When did I say we were imperialists? I said that our humanitarianism
   in Iraq was an extension of historical colonialism. Then in a later
   comment I distinguished between imperialism and colonialism,
   concurring with you that we weren't imperialists. Now, perhaps you
   didn't read the comment, but assuming you did, and then to continue to
   insist that I said America is imperialist, is wrong.

   Putting that aside, Dean, there is what you subjectively believe, and
   there is what is done under the name of what you subjectively believe.
   Just as there is an expectation of "speaking out" on the part of
   activist-Muslims with respect to terrorism, there is an expectation of
   "speaking out" on the part of activist-humanitarians. You don't speak
   about the excesses, failures, and complete usurpation of the
   humanitarian discourse by Cheney, Bush, and the entire neo-con crew.
   Instead, you only defend them, over and over. Even in this post.

   My critique of humanitarian usurpation has nothing to do with you.
   Even my Huff Po, which started all this, refers to "politicians."
   Check it out.

   I am smart enough (I think) to believe that it is not often the
   discourse, but the politicians and leaders who hijack them, that are
   the problem.

   I want Americans to become smart enough to see that they will be duped
   when their leaders cry humanitarianism and go intervene, which is why
   I cannot support your idea that we get together and intervene in a
   humanitarian way in the rest of the world.

   I want Americans to see that previously the humanitarian discourse has
   shown plenty of evidence, with Iraq just being the capstone, of being
   hijacked by corporate interests that do not benefit either Americans
   or the nation under question. I also do not want the Iraq model to
   become a model.

   Invasions based on a country's human rights are not OK.

   You think they are. I don't. That's where we disagree. It is because I
   am more cynical than you about how governments historically have
   justified invasion that I will never support your view. 

   When I was growing up, I used to be told that when Muslims got into
   Iberian Spain in the seventh century, they were invited in by the
   disaffected underclass of Spain who welcomed them as liberators. My
   ass. When I grew up, I realized that story was only kiiiind of true.
   Yes there was an underclass in Spain when the Muslim invaders arrived;
   but that didn't minimize the fact that the invaders were invaders. You
   want me to believe about American in Iraq what Muslims have tried to
   sell about Muslims in Spain.

   No. Invaders are liars. The same is true about numerous invaders that
   have historically taken over Pakistan and India. They always said that
   the Hindus called them to help free them, or the poor Muslims called
   them to help free them. In the end, they stay, and rape the land.

   Dean, be more cynical. Invaders are liars. They act invasively and
   then call it humanitarianism. They then rely on fathers with hearts
   amidst them and tell them: we didn't invade and call it
   humanitarianism, rather, we are humanitarians, therefore we invaded.
   Don't be duped Dean. Hannah Arendt once said that "jobholders and
   family men" were far more pliant and loyal to their leaders than
   "fanatics, adventurers, sex maniacs, and crackpots." Your loyalty has
   to be with your nation Dean, not with its leaders. Fact is, nations
   have evil leaders, lying leaders, and leaders completely sucking the
   phallus of corporate (Halliburton) and external (Saudi Arabia)
   interests. When that happens it is we who have to raise our proverbial
   arms and make sure that our liberties are not threatened (and we
   should also make sure that the liberties of other people are not
   threatened).

   Humanitarianism has long been a pretext for invasion, and from
   everything I have seen since 2003 in my country, it hasn't changed. So
   it doesn't matter what you think about humanitarianism, because even
   though you *are* a humanitarian purist, and an authentic humanitarian,
   you do not call out the people who hijack your preferred global
   strategy.

   You defend them. The few times you discount their errors (Abu Ghraib,
   I think), it is for strategic reasons, not by questioning your own
   adherence to humanitarianism, nor by calling for the proverbial head
   of the humanitarian's in charge.

   Also, its not just you, there is a whole coterie of humanitarians on
   this site who hide behind your proverbial skirt, and also do not
   engage in any criticism of the humanitarian regime that has hijacked
   their discourse.

   Ultimately, though, the question we can't see eye to eye on is this:

   GENERALLY SPEAKING, invasions based on a country's human rights are
   not OK.

   You think they are. I don't. That's where we disagree.

   You want to try and convince me that I should think Iraq should be an
   exception to that rule. I don't think that. It is possible that I
   could think it in another context, but not Iraq, especially because I
   think that we have been the party who has been the most responsible
   for getting the Iraqi human rights in a gutter (arming SH for 8 years
   against Iran to fight a war; and then the sanctions regime that killed
   500,000 according to Madeleine Albright).

   Even if you were to say to me that we needed to go into Iraq to right
   the wrongs of Reagan and Clinton, that's not good enough, because
   other countries are not play-things for our amusement and for
   mollification of our guilt. They are other countries. They have
   sovereignty. You believe that since we violated their sovereignty
   twice (indirectly in Iran-Iraq war, and directly in sanctions regime),
   we might as well do it again.

   No. We stop doing it. Once and for all.

   The less you make a play-thing out of other countries' sovereignty,
   the more likely you will be able to get people to support your
   humanitarian intervention in egregious crises.

   Ultimately though, you still will not get any support for your absurd
   idea of armed democracies doing humanitarian-invasion. Ultimately,
   that kind of military commitment requires the draft, and even if a few
   of you may be up for that, I would venture and say 80 percent of this
   country would balk at the idea.